Information & Ethics Committee on Dec. 9th, 2010

[Dr. Michael Geist]

You can, but I'm happy to get you copies.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

At least we'll get the chapter downloaded. Maybe the clerk would circulate at least the chapter you want us to read, or at least the link. That way we don't have to cut down the trees. That would be great.

We'd be better off to read it and figure it out. I don't know what the work of the committee will be, but it sounds as though there is some low-hanging fruit that we could pick, even if this ends up being a fairly long study. You've given us some food for thought on what could be done as an interim report and on some things like CAIRS, which I think this committee has already sent a motion to restore.

As you know, the Information Commissioner said that if we're going to do this thing, one of the things to do is involve the public as we go. We've been quite excited by the response of both the House of Commons and the Library of Parliament to help us do that at this committee.

We would love your advice as to how you would proceed and the kinds of questions we should be asking the public as we proceed. As my colleague asked, what information would you want up first and in terms of prioritizing? There is the issue around language and translation on demand. If it meant you could release much more, would that be a possible approach?

Give the committee any advice on how to proceed, who else we need to talk to, and whether we should bring you back when we're part way along.

[Eric Sauve]

In the United States, basically Mr. Obama signed a presidential directive that said that each agency had to release a set number of data sets. These are not documents, but data sets. He set a timetable and said that they need to release this number of data sets by this date, and this number of data sets by this date, and put them on a site.

In terms of being able to tap into the enthusiasm of the public, that was all public. They bring the data sets to the government, so it's a little bit less about telling us what you think we should do and more about having all the stuff available so that you can tell us what you think about it.

At the agencies, DOD had x amount of time to produce these data sets, and they just kept releasing them. Then they did some of these innovation contests and that kind of stuff. They engaged the public in different ways, but that's probably from my side. There are different ways, I think, for other....

[Dr. Michael Geist]

I think the point is to create, in a sense, almost some inter-agency competition in which there are expectations set for every department about what will be released. In that way there's a certain amount of accountability and a requirement to move forward within the departments. If you want to know what people want, you can ask within the departments themselves to see what people are asking for. You may find that people are asking for certain kinds of information that the department is not providing at the moment, or is not in a position to provide, because of certain policies that may be in place. That's one way to identify what's out there.

As well, the kinds of competitions that we see taking place at the local level to try to encourage the use and reuse of that information could clearly be replicated at a federal level.

The other thing is to think about some of the people you bring in, as was the case with President Obama. They not only created this fundamental presumption and tried to push it forward, but they also brought some people into that administration with a clear commitment and expertise on open government and open data issues, whether that's the chief technology officer or people like Beth Noveck. Beth Noveck is a law professor who spearheaded what's known as the peer-to-patent project in the United States to try to deal with issues around patent review.

One of the big concerns around patents is whether or not there is prior art and whether or not a patent should be issued. The peer-to-patent project essentially tries to crowdsource that by opening up the various patent applications to the public to see if the public, as a whole, can identify particular kinds of prior art, which would thereby strike out the prospect that something could be patented. The USPTO in the United States has done trial runs of that peer-to-patent process, and I know that our own CIPO has been talking about the prospect of doing those kinds of things.

I'd note that many of these sorts of possibilities lie squarely within the prospect of being included within the digital economy strategy. If it's not clear that there is a direct link between what we're talking about today in terms of spearheading and unleashing potential innovation and using these sorts of new tools in a digital economy strategy for the country, it certainly ought to be. One would hope that as we move forward with the final strategy in the spring, there will be a role for open data and for openness more generally. That was mentioned in the consultation document that the government released on this issue last spring.

[Paul Macmillan]

I think you'll find there are many examples. The good news about where the Government of Canada is today is that it can learn from others who've gone before, in both the municipal and the provincial levels in Canada, as well as from the other examples we've cited.

I think the idea of setting targets around the data sets that will be released is a very good one. I think you'll find a lot of enthusiasm from Internet social networking society and from the Internet activists. I don't think you'll be disappointed in that. I also think that consulting through online channels is an important thing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you, Dr. Bennett.

Go ahead, Monsieur Gaudet.

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Aside from the data of the Department of National Defence, the Privy Council Office and, in some cases, the international trade department, information should be available to the public. I may have overlooked other cases. Data related to the environment, government operations and public accounts should be disclosed automatically. Anyone looking for information should be able to access it immediately.

Do you share that view, or do you think having to wait years with nothing to show for it is acceptable?

As I said earlier, when we were talking about open government, there are some cases.... There are members who deal with files such as National Defence, and you never hear another thing about those files. No one asks questions. Everyone is aware of what goes on, and no one is. Four members take an oath to deal with that portfolio, and that is the end of it. That is fine. At least, there are some people who know what is going on. The same goes for the Privy Council Office. Some data need to remain confidential, and I have no problem with that.

But when it comes to everything else, including the environment, if someone wants to know what the government has done in that area, why would you not disclose that information? That is what I call a lack of transparency.

What do you think, Mr. Sauve?

He does not like it when I ask him questions.

[Some hon. members]

Ha, ha!

[Eric Sauve]

You ask really tough questions.

In the U.S., even the Department of Defense is required to disclose—

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

I agree with that. It is a matter of national security.

[Eric Sauve]

That is not my position. I am just telling you what others are doing.

Obviously, databases that pertain to the safety of a mission are not accessible. That is for sure.

Of course, there are all kinds of different applications. The health sector is a unique example. The U.S. has a program called pillbox. It is a system that brings together a great deal of information on pills that people take. It provides a photo and a description of a product, as well as information on the effects of taking that product. For example, seniors often take pills without knowing what they are. Some take 10 pills without knowing what each one does. That can lead to complications, and some people even end up in hospital. The problem is that they do not know what they are taking. For instance, the number 50 may appear on one side of a pill, as well as on another. People do not know what they are. One health application the U.S. put in place was a telephone service for people to call and describe their pills so they could figure out what those medications were and whether or not they should be taking them. Simple things like that.

There are scores of applications. It is hard to say exactly where they will be used, because there are some that no one would have thought of. The more there are, the better it is.

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

What do you think, Mr. Macmillan?

[Paul Macmillan]

I agree. I think that if you start looking at—

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Under the Standing Orders of the House of Commons, I have to suspend or adjourn. What I'm going to recommend to the committee is that I allow Mr. Gaudet to complete the two minutes he has left. Then I'll ask for closing comments, and then we'll adjourn.

Is that okay with everyone?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mr. Gaudet, you have two minutes.

Go ahead, sir; I'm sorry to interrupt.

[Paul Macmillan]

I was just going to say that I think there is a tendency in the first round, without some specific targets for government departments, to release what's already in the public domain, but to do it as part of a program like this.

I think it's important that an exception principle be put in place, which means saying that we're looking for broad public availability of data. Clearly there are principles and guidelines that we need to establish, just as others have established them, to make sure that the risks associated with the wrong sorts of information making it into the public domain are avoided.

[Dr. Michael Geist]

I think a number of questions we have had highlight something that we ought to make clear, which is that when we're talking about open data or even open government, we're not necessarily talking about sensitive stuff. I know there is a tendency to think that you're just trying to tear down the gates and reveal everybody's dirty secrets. That's not at all what's taking place here.

Yes, there is great value in transparency in government more generally, including in the way decisions are made. I think that's an important element in ensuring that we have appropriate openness. However, when we're talking about open data and open government in this context, we're talking about an awful lot of data that isn't sensitive to anybody at all, but that has real value.

Much of that value is being lost right now by virtue of the way in which we are not making it as readily available and as openly available as we otherwise might. Let's be clear: we are far behind many other countries in this regard. It's not as though we're venturing off the edge of the cliff and nobody else has done it before; many others have taken this leap and have recognized that there are huge opportunities before you ever get to the point of starting to worry about potentially embarrassing documents being released. Very much of the stuff isn't embarrassing to anyone; the embarrassment is that we are losing the real potential in value by not making it available.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Merci, monsieur Gaudet.

That concludes the questions. On behalf of all members of the committee, I want to thank all three of you for your knowledge and your wisdom in this area. Your testimony has been extremely helpful to all of us.

I'm going to now invite anyone who has any closing remarks or comments they want to leave with the committee to speak.

I'll start with you, Mr. Sauve.

[Eric Sauve]

I think it's a journey our government should embark on as a way to create economic value, as I have said. It has the potential to position Canada as an innovative place to build next-generation information-centric companies. It's a shame that we don't see it that way, and it would be great if we did, because there would be more space for employment creation across companies both large and small.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Macmillan, would you like to comment?

[Paul Macmillan]

I would just add that I've been consulting to governments for over 25 years. This is a legitimate, significant trend in public administration. It has the potential to seriously transform and improve how services are delivered, how citizens can participate in the democratic process, and how social and public services are designed and delivered.

I'm glad to see that you're studying the topic and I look forward to the results of your work.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Would you like to comment, Professor Geist?

[Dr. Michael Geist]

I'm glad as well.

I emphasize that this is not a partisan issue by any means, nor is it an opportunity for one side to embarrass anybody else, whatever it happens to be. In may ways, making these materials readily available can instil greater confidence in all politicians and in government more generally.

What we have to do--this is the point from the very outset--is go for the low-hanging fruit and get some stuff done. Some concerns may be legitimate, and we'll have to deal with them, while others have been overstated to begin with, but we have to start moving on this, because we really are losing time compared to others.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

I want to thank you very much for your appearances here today.

Go ahead, Mrs. Davidson.